|
|
October 30, 2006Rummy needs to go?If you missed it, Ben Stein was provocative over at CBS Sunday Morning, in declaring that it is time (or past time) for Rumsfeld to step down. He puts it in the form of a speech he feels the president should give. I don’t know if I agree with everything Stein has written. I think perhaps I don’t - partly because I think the “complete capitulation” he envisions is not something that could ever be received fairly, prudently or trust-worthily by too many in both houses of Congress, who will see it as nothing less than President Bush declaring himself “the weak horse” meant to be trampled on (rather as bin Laden said he saw America after Mogadishu). I think Stein’s answer is a little too extreme, a little too helpless. But…I think there is a case to be made for the retiring of Donald Rumsfeld and I think Jules Crittenden ably makes it. He also says President Bush needs to increase the size of the military and mothball Dick Cheney. Writes Crittenden: Once again, I don’t know if I agree with everything Crittenden writes, but I agree with a lot of it, most particularly that President Bush should have gently and honorably retired Rummy right after the ‘04 elections. Bushian loyalty is famous, but it is also famous for finally doing the Bushes themselves in, and I believe that has happened with regards to Rumsfeld, among others. Finally, in reading these very affecting emails from Captain Robert Secher made me feel so terribly bad for his family, and grieve for the loss of his vibrant life (and that’s precisely how Newsweek wanted me to feel a week before the election), but it hasn’t changed my mind that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. Indeed Secher, although he was ambivilent about much of the war, believed in the mission, as well. Still, something he wrote in one email in particular stood out to me: Anytime an American fires a weapon there has to be an investigation into why there was an escalation of force. That wouldn’t have stopped us from firing, but it prevents us from just firing indiscriminately. We have to have positively identified targets. I read that and I thought…no wonder we cannot get any lasting traction in Iraq. I understand why we are trying to fight a “humane” war, and I know that civilian casualties are tragic, but when I read that line I thought, “if we’d had to fight WWII like that, we’d all be speaking German by now.” We’re falling behind on this war mostly because we’re not fighting it like a war. And no, it is not “like” any other war, and of course we hope to have the fewest civilian casualties possible…but the enemy is not fighting the way we’re fighting. I don’t see how we win if our troops are working with cop-on-the-beat regulations. There is no such thing, unfortunately, as a truely “humane” war. But maybe the job of war, and of a wartime president, is to clean out the rats nests unequivocally and unambiguously (so that no new rats build new nests - so that they understand the futility of it) than to hesitate too much. I’m not a warrior. One of my sons might be. If he is, I want to know that his life will not depend on dithering. There is much I do not understand. But I do know that if you say a thing, and you say you mean it, then you’d better be be ready to back up that “I mean it” with action that re-inforces what you’ve said. It’s true in parenting. It’s true in politics. It’s true in everything. And it’s true in war. http://theanchoressonline.com/2006/10/30/rummy-needs-to-go/trackback/ 6 Responses to “Rummy needs to go?” |
October 30th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Cheney’s ‘dunking’ remark revives torture controversy
Comments by Vice President Dick Cheney prompted questions Friday about whether he advocated torturin
October 30th, 2006 at 11:42 pm
Yes, the size of the military should have been increased. Too late for this war(Iraq), though; enlarging the Army or the USMC while maintaining current combat standards would take 2-3 years. Recruiting, training, equipping, seeding with experienced cadre, etc, takes a great deal of time.(see http://www.laconicblog.blogspot.com, “You Get What You Pay For”). The crucial Rummy error was thinking that Iraq would stabilize quickly and that this would put irresistible pressure on Iran. Iran overthrown by True Moderates, Syria would soon have to follow, etc. No point in saddling us with an enlarged military for nothing. Didn’t work out that way, obviously. Didn’t help that the administration was made gun-shy by the Left’s politicization of the war. If the war had had bipartisan backing, the Iranian conundrum might have already been settled which would have made a huge difference in the stability of Iraq. All this argues for, I’m afraid, punitive attacks instead of nation building.
October 31st, 2006 at 1:16 am
THEN: Hitler decides to launch a major offensive in the last days of the war(Dec. 1944-February 1945) based on his belief that Americans were incapable of fighting effectively, and that the American home front was likely to crack upon hearing of a decisive American loss. On December 16, 1944, in the midst of an unusual cold and snowy Winter, German forces launched their “Unternehmen: Wacht am Rhein”–known as The Battle of the Ardennes by the U.S. Army. You may know it by its common name, The Battle of The Bulge…When it was all over, American casualties totaled 80,987, including 19,276 dead, 23,218 missing or captured, and 47,493 wounded. Most of the American casualties occurred within the first three days of battle.
NOW: Terrorists decide to launch an offensive just before the American elections designed based on their belief that the American home front was likely to crack upon hearing of a continuing American losses. Over 100 American soldiers are killed in October, making it one of the deadliest months since the start of the war.
THEN: Americans and Allies rally like never before to defeat the Nazis. No one mentions getting rid of Secretary of War, Henry Stimson.
NOW: People debate giving the enemy what they want…
Lord, help us!
October 31st, 2006 at 11:31 am
[...] Rid The Right Of Rummy The Anchoress points to two very salient articles this past week, both of which call for Rumsfeld’s resignation. Ben Stein’s article goes so far as to provide a pre-fabricated resignation speech, although Rumsfeld claims to have tendered his resignation twice only to have it refused by President Bush. [...]
October 31st, 2006 at 4:45 pm
When Ben denounces the high plutocrats in his NYT column, I’m nodding my head. On this subject, no. His dream speech reeks of boomer- narcissicism. Whether Bush does or does not so feeeell baddd about things is not what the troops and the nation need to hear. A blue ribbon panel of every Tom, Dick & Harry? How communal. As if wars are a role playing game in a group therapy session. A sorry, whimpering performance befitting a sorry, whimpering nation. Bush, Rummy, if you’re reading this, toss Ben’s advice in the crapper.
October 31st, 2006 at 11:37 pm
YES, little children!
It’s TRUE!
If you do not ear your peas and carrots
In the middle of the night
The ogre RUMSFELD will get you!!!!!!!!!!!
Much of the critism from the left is almost as over stated as my satire, factually wrong, accuses him of mutually exclusive faults in the same paragraph and seems to be more sloganeering than the serious analysis. Though perhaps more of their children are eating their peas and carrots.
That being said to me it has been pretty clear that Mr. Rumsfeld would made a better contribution the Administration the Armed Forces and the Country if he had spent the last six years playing with his grand children. His management sytle is to concentrate on one itemt then the next and so on. This can be effective in a smaller organization than the Department of Defense. But in doing so he is not coordinating between the items and doesn’t see the anomalies this creates until hit him. (However, watching the left try to turn annomlies into a master evil plot is fun.)
An example that does not depend on what you think of the war or the administration.
Rumsfeld does not seem to think personnel management out more than six months or a year. People enlist for 2, 3 or 4 years. Individual training takes three months and unit training six months. The Navy Times has had several articles about sailors deploying to Afghanistan as ground troops. I have no doubt they will do a good job but why not the Marines or the Army. Because we needs more ground troops and past short term decisions and the resulting political commitments leave him in a position where he can’t politically expand the ground services.
When he came to office he had a commitment for a SDI program. With which I have no objection. But ground based air defense is in the Army (because the Air Force refused take it in 1945.) Rumsfeld advocated an eight division army, mostly I think to fund the SDI program by reallocating funds. To work this would require a large reduction in commitments.
The administration also came to office saying that Clintons 10 division Army was to small for the commitments given it and that it was a hollow Army. Most people expected a modest increase in end strength and/or reduction in commitments. By November 2001 it was pretty obvious that for at least 5 or 10 years we would have additional commitments above a 10 division Army. (My estimate was and still is 2 new Army Divisions and new Marine division.) For at least a year after 9/11 he was still pushing for an eight division Army. The latest plans still do not call for an active duty staffing to support the commitments we know we will have.
It has been one short-term decision after another until he has to raid the Navy to provide ground troops. And we are not talking about cost savings here, current law gives him the ability for a temporary expansion of the armed forces no more expense than the incremental costs of the extra troops.
The constant use of the reserves to maintain the strength levels after a the time needed for a transition period is leaving the reserves in the position that they are to committed to be a reserve force to handle unexpected requirements in places like Iran, Korea and elsewhere.
To be fair to Runsfeld, he has learned in office. He has gotten the bean counters off the military services backs so that reforms that have been advocated in the Armed forces since at least the 1980’s could be implemented. And certainly he is the better Secretary of Defense than we have had since Clintons first one was fired/quit in disgust.
The problem right now is that for him to resign under the current pressure would cause major harm to the war effort, the administration, and future Secretaries of Defense ability to function effectively.
A related post from my blog Hank’s Eclectic meanderingshttp://eclecticmeanderings.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_eclecticmeanderings_archive.html